Claire Stocks

Teaching Development for Doctoral Students: What Can We Learn from Activity Theory?

This paper explores issues relating to programmes for doctoral students wishing to gain experience of, and develop skills in, teaching. The focus is on “Developing Learning and Teaching” – a new provision at the University of Oxford. The purpose is to exemplify how activity theory can be used to situate particular programmes and individual experiences in a wider systemic setting. The authors explain the concepts of the activity system, and use these to identify systemic tensions (analysing university‐wide survey data), then to assess whether the provision has addressed these tensions (analysing data from interviews with participants). Cet article explore les questions soulevées par les programmes destinés aux doctorants intéressés à acquérir une expérience d’enseignement et à développer leurs compétences d’enseignement. Le centre d’intérêt est placé sur ≪ «Developing Learning and Teaching» ≫ – un nouveau cours offert à l’université d’Oxford. L’objectif est de démontrer comment la théorie de l’activité peut être utilisée de façon à situer des programmes spécifiques et des expériences individuelles dans un contexte systémique plus vaste. Nous expliquons les concepts du système d’activité et utilisons ceux‐ci de façon à identifier des tensions systémiques (par l’analyse de données recueillies par questionnaire à la grandeur de l’université), puis évaluons si le cours cible ces tensions (par l’analyse de données recueillies par entretien auprès des participants).

Advancing assessment practice in continuing professional learning: toward a richer understanding of teaching portfolios for learning and assessment

This paper reviews a range of challenges and tensions experienced when using portfolios for learning as well as for summative assessment in the context of continuing professional learning in academic development programmes. While portfolios are becoming increasingly prominent, the details of how they are used are under-examined; they are often simply assumed to be an appropriate tool. However, it is important that, as practitioners, we are able to justify our own assessment practices and convey our expectations to our participants, who may be unfamiliar with the demands of a reflective portfolio. In this paper we explore some of the appeal as well as the difficulties of using portfolios, many of which arise from the fact that portfolios are often simultaneously used for summative and formative purposes. We suggest how the challenges sometimes experienced with portfolio assessment can be addressed by course conveners.

Signifying authenticity in academic practice: a framework for better understanding and harnessing portfolio assessment

Portfolios are an assessment tool that help frame expectations of personal professional learning about teaching in higher education, a key dimension of academic practice. In this paper, we review our experiences in both supporting academic colleagues to develop a teaching portfolio, and in their assessment. We argue that the authenticity of the account offered is key: participants should aspire to render an authentic account of themselves, their context, actions and their professional stance. Likewise, assessors need to verify that an account is authentic. We posit five signifiers of authenticity: biographical/professional context; practice development and experience of practice; integration of core concepts and key ideas from the literature, especially evaluation and conceptions of teaching; purpose and values in continuing professional learning (CPL); coherence of writing, vocabulary used, writing style, etc. These are intended to help course leaders and conveners of CPL activities to articulate what it is that is being sought from participants, and hence clarify expectations for both participants doing the learning and for disciplinary colleagues assisting with the assessment.

Bringing the backstage into the light? Thoughts on shadowy academic practices

As a researcher studying doctoral and postdoctoral experiences (NH), and a developer working with early career academics (CS), we seek to understand better the nature of academic work. It strikes us that important aspects of academic practice, especially those relating to service, remain murky and opaque to less senior academics. In this short text we focus on particular aspects of service – peer review and journal editing. We argue that as powerful forces shaping the production of knowledge they deserve explicit attention, particularly with respect to research students and those in their first few years post-PhD as they are more often located on the periphery of these activities. Why worry about peer review and editing? Graue (2006) suggests these processes serve multiple important functions: controlling the quality of collective research conversation, formatively improving scholarship, and (potentially) transforming those who engage in them. She explains how they also present tensions: reviewers and editors are relied upon for their knowledge and expertise, but such reliance may resist scholarly innovation. Despite their significance, these processes tend to remain in what we call the backstage of academic practice. Goffman (1959) referred to the backstage of social life, showing the importance of aspects of identity and interaction which are not foregrounded or public. We see parallels in the ways academic selves and arguments are presented – the frontstage of the published text or the conference presentation is intimately linked to backstage, more shadowy spaces. We see peer review and editing as backstage activities, and consider what might be gained if aspects of these processes were brought to the fore. Often the interaction between author and reviewer is the most direct, but least public engagement, in which concepts or methodologies are challenged and supporting or opposing views aired. The finished article almost entirely masks its evolution. In preserving anonymity and keeping initial drafts and reviewers’ comments confidential we no doubt gain much. However, our experiences as editors and reviewers have led us to think about how important these backstage processes are. Natriello (1996) suggests that anonymity offers a level playing field, enabling meritocratic rather than political decisions. This creates a space in which candid feedback may be offered, invaluable provided reviewers are responsible and receivers of feedback are thick-skinned enough to deal with a challenging review. Writing a

The place of trust in Continuing Professional Learning programmes: supporting authentic reflection in portfolio assessment

Abstract In this paper we consider why academics on Continuing Professional Learning (CPL) programmes often struggle with practice-based learning, and why they can find the reflective portfolio particularly challenging. We first argue that convenors should articulate the differences between ‘academic learning’ and ‘learning in academia’ for participants. Furthermore, in an environment where trust has been increasingly replaced by the monitoring of performance, CPL participants can find themselves on unfamiliar learning territory in conditions which are not conducive to risk-taking. We identify how convenors might build the trust required for participants to offer an authentic account of their practice.